...This is not just a problem with the Catholic schema, however. One also finds something similar, e.g., in St Mark of Ephesus. In his first homily on purgatory, Mark distinguishes three remissions of sin: (1) during Baptism, (2) after Baptism, through conversion and good works, and (3) after death, through the prayers and good deeds of the Church. The first remission, Mark tells us, is not bound up with any labor. It is "grace alone and of us is asked nothing else but faith." The second remission is painful, involving contrition, repentance, and weeping. The third remission is also painful, "for it is bound up with repentance and a conscience that is contrite and suffers from insufficiency of good." "Moreover," says St Mark, "in the first and last remission of sins the grace of God has the larger part, with the cooperation of prayers, and very little is brought in by us. The middle remission, on the other hand, has little from grace, while the greater part is owing to our labor." Quite honestly, I find this presentation as unsatisfactory as the classical Roman position. It too seems to suffer from a juridical construal of post-baptismal sin and seems to suggest that God has to be persuaded by our ascetical works to forgive. The unconditionality of God's love and mercy seems to get pushed aside. No wonder some folks in the early centuries inferred that it would be best to postpone Holy Baptism until later in life. Yet surely such an inference is wrong--and not just because death can come to us at any time, without warning.

IMHO, this is an area that requires more reflection by both Catholics and Orthodox.

I will try to take a shot at interpreting St. Mark, according to my understanding of baptism and repentance.

When we believe and are baptized (assuming an adult convert), we repent of our sins, confess them, and commit ourselves to turning our life around in the Body of Christ. Assuming we repented with sincere intentions, our baptism sets us free of all the guilt of our past sins—God has called us to repent, we heard him, and we cooperated with him. We are now forgiven, reconciled to our own conscience, and ready to begin Life in Christ, the process of deification. We must continue to struggle and cooperate with God’s grace to attain this goal, but when we are confronted with the Great White Throne at the Last Day, we have nothing to be ashamed of from before our baptism, because we have turned away from our sins since then.

But now, after baptism, we know better. We have been joined to a higher calling, and ignorance is no longer an excuse for us. If, before our baptism, we had been entrusted with two talents, now after our baptism, we find ourselves with five. We have more to answer for.

To speculate about the third phase of repentence, after death, unless one believes in purgatory, there is not much (probably nothing) a departed soul can do to in tems of good works. It may still repent, but that is all. Hence, it is left to God’s mercy and our prayers.

As for postponing one’s baptism until one is older, I think we both agree that this is a “cheap way out.” However, many of the early converts would postpone their baptism intil age 30 to imitate Christ, not as a “get out of jail free” card. I’m not sure postponing baptism necessitates a legalistic, magical, or otherwise crass understanding of it. There were, of course, people like Constantine, who waited until their deathbed. Whether he was using this as an excuse for any sins he committed after his conversion is something we’ll never know. But doubtless the majority of people postponing their baptism were not taking advantage of it as an excuse to sin more. Surely God looks disfavorably on such a thing.

Does this all make sense to you? We’ve been spending the whole thread trying to dissect the doctrine of purgatory, so I suppose it is fair to try to pick at Orthodox teaching as well!

I probably should confess my own confusion about one specific aspect of Catholic teaching on Baptism, purgatory, and the temporal punishment of sin. As someone above has pointed out, traditional Catholic teaching claims that Baptism remits all temporal punishment of sin (see, e.g., Thomas Aquinas). Now perhaps I have misunderstood this teaching, but this seems to imply that if an adult gets baptized and then immediately dies, he is immediately admitted to Heaven without any kind of purification or purgation. I honestly do not understand this. This logically follow only if one is interpreting the temporal punishment of sin through a juridical prism. The matter looks differently, however, when one reflects on these matters in more personalist and existential terms. The experience of Christians down through the ages would seem to suggest that Holy Baptism does not immediately heal us of all the personal damage done to us by years of sinful behavior. It does not immediately and completely liberate us from our egotism and sinful inclinations. Yet the classical teaching says that if an adult immediately dies after Baptism he is brought immediately into Heaven, bypassing all post-mortem purification, whereas if the baptized Christian dies after a life-time of penitence and participation in the sacramental life of the Church, he may still need to go through eschatological purification. Why does the Sacrament of Baptism allow one to bypass eschatological purification but the Sacrament of Confession does not? I honestly do not understand this, nor have I found the usual explanations convincing.

This is not just a problem with the Catholic schema, however. One also finds something similar, e.g., in St Mark of Ephesus. In his first homily on purgatory, Mark distinguishes three remissions of sin: (1) during Baptism, (2) after Baptism, through conversion and good works, and (3) after death, through the prayers and good deeds of the Church. The first remission, Mark tells us, is not bound up with any labor. It is "grace alone and of us is asked nothing else but faith." The second remission is painful, involving contrition, repentance, and weeping. The third remission is also painful, "for it is bound up with repentance and a conscience that is contrite and suffers from insufficiency of good." "Moreover," says St Mark, "in the first and last remission of sins the grace of God has the larger part, with the cooperation of prayers, and very little is brought in by us. The middle remission, on the other hand, has little from grace, while the greater part is owing to our labor." Quite honestly, I find this presentation as unsatisfactory as the classical Roman position. It too seems to suffer from a juridical construal of post-baptismal sin and seems to suggest that God has to be persuaded by our ascetical works to forgive. The unconditionality of God's love and mercy seems to get pushed aside. No wonder some folks in the early centuries inferred that it would be best to postpone Holy Baptism until later in life. Yet surely such an inference is wrong--and not just because death can come to us at any time, without warning.

IMHO, this is an area that requires more reflection by both Catholics and Orthodox.

This is not a problem for the Catholic Church, Father, and hasn't ever been.

In fact it was the crux of the stumbling block with the Joint Declaration ten years ago.

I don't have the credentials to press the issue here or to satisfy you or any of the good people inquiring but the answer is: Sanctifying Grace

Sanctifying Grace that is received at the time of Baptism is an infused grace that returns our will and intellect to their original integrity.

Whether one approves of such a teaching or not is irrelevant for the moment. It is the teaching and before anyone comes back with how it is not possible, I would recommend just letting the idea percolate and do some research on what it means to Catholics and where it comes from ...for it is the same grace that moves us from struggling sinner to theosis. It would be rather premature to just say it is bunk.

Pardon me if i hedge here a bit but I am just in from pushing a mower around and probably should not even be on-line.

But the answer to your concerns lies in the Catholic teaching concerning sanctifying grace, something which most of the Lutheran clergy that I knew who were an active part of the long hard march to achieve the Joint Declaration, still tell me is bunko...so much for Joint Declarations....

But the answer to your concerns lies in the Catholic teaching concerning sanctifying grace, something which most of the Lutheran clergy that I knew who were an active part of the long hard march to achieve the Joint Declaration, still tell me is bunko...so much for Joint Declarations....

M.

Please do not be offended by my use of the word "bunk"....I have had the experience more than once of speaking of "sanctifying grace" to others from outside of the Catholic Church and more than once have gotten back a one word reply:

Bunko!!

So I tend to think of the argument in those terms now...It is not meant to be rude when I use it. It just comes easily to mind.

Thank you for the reference to this account of an after death experience, Mary, but I would caution our readers, Caveat Lector.

1) I have never heard of this account before, despite frequenting the Russian-language Orthodox Forums

2) It is given on the website of one of the questionable "Orthodox" Churches which have come into existence in recent years by spontaneous generation.

3) It is exactly the type of dubious religious genre which the Church excluded from the Canon of the New Testament when they were sorting out what belonged and what did not.

True and I should have raised the caveat myself...but there are others that are collected from people in canonical Churches. Many more in fact. I just found that one today by accident and sent it along.

I probably should confess my own confusion about one specific aspect of Catholic teaching on Baptism, purgatory, and the temporal punishment of sin. As someone above has pointed out, traditional Catholic teaching claims that Baptism remits all temporal punishment of sin (see, e.g., Thomas Aquinas). Now perhaps I have misunderstood this teaching, but this seems to imply that if an adult gets baptized and then immediately dies, he is immediately admitted to Heaven without any kind of purification or purgation. I honestly do not understand this. This logically follow only if one is interpreting the temporal punishment of sin through a juridical prism. The matter looks differently, however, when one reflects on these matters in more personalist and existential terms. The experience of Christians down through the ages would seem to suggest that Holy Baptism does not immediately heal us of all the personal damage done to us by years of sinful behavior. It does not immediately and completely liberate us from our egotism and sinful inclinations. Yet the classical teaching says that if an adult immediately dies after Baptism he is brought immediately into Heaven, bypassing all post-mortem purification, whereas if the baptized Christian dies after a life-time of penitence and participation in the sacramental life of the Church, he may still need to go through eschatological purification. Why does the Sacrament of Baptism allow one to bypass eschatological purification but the Sacrament of Confession does not? I honestly do not understand this, nor have I found the usual explanations convincing.

This is not just a problem with the Catholic schema, however. One also finds something similar, e.g., in St Mark of Ephesus. In his first homily on purgatory, Mark distinguishes three remissions of sin: (1) during Baptism, (2) after Baptism, through conversion and good works, and (3) after death, through the prayers and good deeds of the Church. The first remission, Mark tells us, is not bound up with any labor. It is "grace alone and of us is asked nothing else but faith." The second remission is painful, involving contrition, repentance, and weeping. The third remission is also painful, "for it is bound up with repentance and a conscience that is contrite and suffers from insufficiency of good." "Moreover," says St Mark, "in the first and last remission of sins the grace of God has the larger part, with the cooperation of prayers, and very little is brought in by us. The middle remission, on the other hand, has little from grace, while the greater part is owing to our labor." Quite honestly, I find this presentation as unsatisfactory as the classical Roman position. It too seems to suffer from a juridical construal of post-baptismal sin and seems to suggest that God has to be persuaded by our ascetical works to forgive. The unconditionality of God's love and mercy seems to get pushed aside. No wonder some folks in the early centuries inferred that it would be best to postpone Holy Baptism until later in life. Yet surely such an inference is wrong--and not just because death can come to us at any time, without warning.

IMHO, this is an area that requires more reflection by both Catholics and Orthodox.

Christ is Risen!

Father,

I think one of the blessings about being Orthodox is that we don't sweat the small stuff. If someone asks if grandma's cat has gone to heaven we feel no embarrassment in saying, we don't know.

It is, orthodoxically speaking, quite a waste of time to call for more reflection on the subjects which interest you. The Orthodox may well come up with 20 different opinions but that's all they would be -opinions. None of us are in the ranks of the "Church Fathers." None of us are blessed with futher revelation from God to the Church. The fact of the matter is that the Lord has not been pleassed to reveal to us very much about the afterdeath state and to go beyond what he has revealed is probably not beneficial for us and it is only the fruit of the finite and often erroneous human mind.

2) It is given on the website of one of the questionable "Orthodox" Churches which have come into existence in recent years by spontaneous generation.

Is this an Orthodox Church or not?

I have inquired further into the matter of that woman's experience. She is a part of the Russian Orthodox Church, regardless of whoever else has decided to take counsel from her story. To try and diminish the import of the story by distracting one into chasing down vagante bishops and disaffected parishes is well beside the point and an old habit of dear Father Ambrose.

2) It is given on the website of one of the questionable "Orthodox" Churches which have come into existence in recent years by spontaneous generation.

Is this an Orthodox Church or not?

I have inquired further into the matter of that woman's experience. She is a part of the Russian Orthodox Church, regardless of whoever else has decided to take counsel from her story. To try and diminish the import of the story by distracting one into chasing down vagante bishops and disaffected parishes is well beside the point and an old habit of dear Father Ambrose.

Mary

What does it matter to which Church she belongs?

What is telling is that I have never encounterd this tale on any Orthodox website nor seen mention of it on any of the Orthodox boards. Don't you find that a teeny bit puzzling if it is as significant for the Orthodox as it seems to be in your estimation?

After all, I can easily locate tales and visions on Catholic websites which relate the gruesome horrors of Purgatory. Shall we disappear hand in hand down the rabbit hole?

2) It is given on the website of one of the questionable "Orthodox" Churches which have come into existence in recent years by spontaneous generation.

Is this an Orthodox Church or not?

I have inquired further into the matter of that woman's experience. She is a part of the Russian Orthodox Church, regardless of whoever else has decided to take counsel from her story. To try and diminish the import of the story by distracting one into chasing down vagante bishops and disaffected parishes is well beside the point and an old habit of dear Father Ambrose.

Mary

What does it matter to which Church she belongs?

What is telling is that I have never encounterd this tale on any Orthodox website nor seen mention of it on any of the Orthodox boards. Don't you find that a teeny bit puzzling if it is as significant for the Orthodox as it seems to be in your estimation?

After all, I can easily locate tales and visions on Catholic websites which relate the gruesome horrors of Purgatory. Shall we disappear hand in hand down the rabbit hole?

You can find these stories on-line, Father. From quite reliable Orthodox sources. Nobody else but you questions that such examples exist. People may not be happy about it but the stories are there and there are flesh and blood Eucharistic miracles that happen during Orthodox liturgies too.

But imagine what might happen if their presence in the Church became too widespread.

Why you'd have to give up telling Catholics they are possessed by demons...at least you'd have to admit to the same demons.

2) It is given on the website of one of the questionable "Orthodox" Churches which have come into existence in recent years by spontaneous generation.

Is this an Orthodox Church or not?

I have inquired further into the matter of that woman's experience. She is a part of the Russian Orthodox Church, regardless of whoever else has decided to take counsel from her story. To try and diminish the import of the story by distracting one into chasing down vagante bishops and disaffected parishes is well beside the point and an old habit of dear Father Ambrose.

Mary

What does it matter to which Church she belongs?

What is telling is that I have never encounterd this tale on any Orthodox website nor seen mention of it on any of the Orthodox boards. Don't you find that a teeny bit puzzling if it is as significant for the Orthodox as it seems to be in your estimation?

After all, I can easily locate tales and visions on Catholic websites which relate the gruesome horrors of Purgatory. Shall we disappear hand in hand down the rabbit hole?

You can find these stories on-line, Father. From quite reliable Orthodox sources.

Would you substantiate these point of death stories please.

Quote

Nobody else but you questions that such examples exist.

Good grief! I have NOT questioned these examples exist. I remember one white-light one which was circulating through my Serbian Church a few years ago.

Quote

People may not be happy about it but the stories are there and there are flesh and blood Eucharistic miracles that happen during Orthodox liturgies too.

The oldest such Orthodox miracle is Lanciano in the 8th century. The most recent is probably with Elder Cleopas at the monastery of Sihastria in our lifetime.

2) It is given on the website of one of the questionable "Orthodox" Churches which have come into existence in recent years by spontaneous generation.

Is this an Orthodox Church or not?

I have inquired further into the matter of that woman's experience. She is a part of the Russian Orthodox Church, regardless of whoever else has decided to take counsel from her story. To try and diminish the import of the story by distracting one into chasing down vagante bishops and disaffected parishes is well beside the point and an old habit of dear Father Ambrose.

Mary

What does it matter to which Church she belongs?

What is telling is that I have never encounterd this tale on any Orthodox website nor seen mention of it on any of the Orthodox boards. Don't you find that a teeny bit puzzling if it is as significant for the Orthodox as it seems to be in your estimation?

After all, I can easily locate tales and visions on Catholic websites which relate the gruesome horrors of Purgatory. Shall we disappear hand in hand down the rabbit hole?

You can find these stories on-line, Father. From quite reliable Orthodox sources.

Would you substantiate these point of death stories please.

Quote

Nobody else but you questions that such examples exist.

Good grief! I have NOT questioned these examples exist. I remember one white-light one which was circulating through my Serbian Church a few years ago.

Quote

People may not be happy about it but the stories are there and there are flesh and blood Eucharistic miracles that happen during Orthodox liturgies too.

The oldest such Orthodox miracle is Lanciano in the 8th century. The most recent is probably with Elder Cleopas at the monastery of Sihastria in our lifetime.

2) It is given on the website of one of the questionable "Orthodox" Churches which have come into existence in recent years by spontaneous generation.

Is this an Orthodox Church or not?

I have inquired further into the matter of that woman's experience. She is a part of the Russian Orthodox Church, regardless of whoever else has decided to take counsel from her story. To try and diminish the import of the story by distracting one into chasing down vagante bishops and disaffected parishes is well beside the point and an old habit of dear Father Ambrose.

Mary

What does it matter to which Church she belongs?

What is telling is that I have never encounterd this tale on any Orthodox website nor seen mention of it on any of the Orthodox boards. Don't you find that a teeny bit puzzling if it is as significant for the Orthodox as it seems to be in your estimation?

After all, I can easily locate tales and visions on Catholic websites which relate the gruesome horrors of Purgatory. Shall we disappear hand in hand down the rabbit hole?

You can find these stories on-line, Father. From quite reliable Orthodox sources.

Would you substantiate these point of death stories please.

Quote

Nobody else but you questions that such examples exist.

Good grief! I have NOT questioned these examples exist. I remember one white-light one which was circulating through my Serbian Church a few years ago.

Quote

People may not be happy about it but the stories are there and there are flesh and blood Eucharistic miracles that happen during Orthodox liturgies too.

The oldest such Orthodox miracle is Lanciano in the 8th century. The most recent is probably with Elder Cleopas at the monastery of Sihastria in our lifetime.

Grief, but you're just making it worse. Now you are saying that my entire Church says that Catholics are possessed by demons! Look, you probably need to substantiate that or retract. Has it been stated at any of the meetings in the bilateral dialogue? Ravenna? Cyprus?

2) It is given on the website of one of the questionable "Orthodox" Churches which have come into existence in recent years by spontaneous generation.

Is this an Orthodox Church or not?

I have inquired further into the matter of that woman's experience. She is a part of the Russian Orthodox Church, regardless of whoever else has decided to take counsel from her story. To try and diminish the import of the story by distracting one into chasing down vagante bishops and disaffected parishes is well beside the point and an old habit of dear Father Ambrose.

Mary

What does it matter to which Church she belongs?

What is telling is that I have never encounterd this tale on any Orthodox website nor seen mention of it on any of the Orthodox boards. Don't you find that a teeny bit puzzling if it is as significant for the Orthodox as it seems to be in your estimation?

After all, I can easily locate tales and visions on Catholic websites which relate the gruesome horrors of Purgatory. Shall we disappear hand in hand down the rabbit hole?

You can find these stories on-line, Father. From quite reliable Orthodox sources.

Would you substantiate these point of death stories please.

Quote

Nobody else but you questions that such examples exist.

Good grief! I have NOT questioned these examples exist. I remember one white-light one which was circulating through my Serbian Church a few years ago.

Quote

People may not be happy about it but the stories are there and there are flesh and blood Eucharistic miracles that happen during Orthodox liturgies too.

The oldest such Orthodox miracle is Lanciano in the 8th century. The most recent is probably with Elder Cleopas at the monastery of Sihastria in our lifetime.

Grief, but you're just making it worse. Now you are saying that my entire Church says that Catholics are possessed by demons! Look, you probably need to substantiate that or retract. Has it been stated at any of the meetings in the bilateral dialogue? Ravenna? Cyprus?

Oh my you are going to press this are you not. Well then Orthodox Generic=You

Grief, but you're just making it worse. Now you are saying that my entire Church says that Catholics are possessed by demons! Look, you probably need to substantiate that or retract. Has it been stated at any of the meetings in the bilateral dialogue? Ravenna? Cyprus?

Oh my you are going to press this are you not. Well then Orthodox Generic=You

And if you need proof of that go read the comments on my blog.

M.

Yes, I suppose I am inclined to ask for substantiation.

As you know, we can easily find offficial papal statements as well as from RC theologians that the Orthodox are going to Hell. Pope Eugene IV and many others. Thomas Aquinas. Sine Papa nulla salus! It was taught that without submission to the Pope and without membership of the Roman Catholic Church a man could not be saved. (Of course this is a papal teaching which has now undergone a 180 degree reversal!)

Probably the last really explicit expression is stated in Pope Pius XI's Mortalium Animos in 1928:

"The Catholic Church alone is keeping the true worship. This is the font of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God; if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. ... Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ, no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors."

But the damnation of those not in submission to the Roman Pontiff can be found in later years with Pope Pius XII, and even as late as Pope Paul VI.

So I challenge you to substantiate your claim that the Orthodox have pronounced that Catholics are possessed by demons.

Grief, but you're just making it worse. Now you are saying that my entire Church says that Catholics are possessed by demons! Look, you probably need to substantiate that or retract. Has it been stated at any of the meetings in the bilateral dialogue? Ravenna? Cyprus?

Oh my you are going to press this are you not. Well then Orthodox Generic=You

And if you need proof of that go read the comments on my blog.

M.

Yes, I suppose I am inclined to ask for substantiation.

As you know, we can easily find offficial papal statements as well as from RC theologians that the Orthodox are going to Hell. Pope Eugene IV and many others. Thomas Aquinas. Sine Papa nulla salus! It was taught that without submission to the Pope and without membership of the Roman Catholic Church a man could not be saved. (Of course this is a papal teaching which has now undergone a 180 degree reversal!)

Probably the last really explicit expression is stated in Pope Pius XI's Mortalium Animos in 1928:

"The Catholic Church alone is keeping the true worship. This is the font of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God; if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. ... Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ, no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors."

But the damnation of those not in submission to the Roman Pontiff can be found in later years with Pope Pius XII, and even as late as Pope Paul VI.

So I challenge you to substantiate your claim that the Orthodox have pronounced that Catholics are possessed by demons.

Well don't knock yourself out Father and don't hold your breath because I never said that Orthodox have pronounced that Catholics are possessed by demons. I said that Orthodox say that "they=Eucharistic miracles" are the product of demonic action.

So I am going to leave any continuation of this to you.

Fact is that there are Eucharistic miracles and near death experiences in Orthodoxy that get very little press among those who are not fond of Catholics and those whose particular goat is tied to the post of purgation.

Probably the last really explicit expression is stated in Pope Pius XI's Mortalium Animos in 1928:

"The Catholic Church alone is keeping the true worship. This is the font of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God; if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. ... Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ, no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors."

This does not nullify our belief in the concept of invincible ignornance and you know it.

Probably the last really explicit expression is stated in Pope Pius XI's Mortalium Animos in 1928:

"The Catholic Church alone is keeping the true worship. This is the font of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God; if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. ... Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ, no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors."

This does not nullify our belief in the concept of invincible ignornance and you know it.

Ah yes! The 8th Sacrament of Invincible Ignorance which has saved more people globally than Baptism. It had slipped my mind.

This is a truly the epitome of "Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise."

Those who labour in the mental darkness of Invincible Ignorance are unable to commit a mortal sin since their darkened mind, deprived of grace, is not able to comprehend fully the nature of a mortal sin nor to formulate an intentional desire to commit one. Without these two requisites of full understanding and full intention there can be no mortal sin. They are mortal-sin free.

Probably the last really explicit expression is stated in Pope Pius XI's Mortalium Animos in 1928:

"The Catholic Church alone is keeping the true worship. This is the font of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God; if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. ... Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ, no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors."

This does not nullify our belief in the concept of invincible ignornance and you know it.

Ah yes! The 8th Sacrament of Invincible Ignorance which has saved more people globally than Baptism. It had slipped my mind.

Oh Father Ambrose. I think this may be the most ridiculous comment I have heard as of lately. Thanks for providing it.

The concept of invincible ignorance is no different than the EO teaching that salvation is possible outside the bounds of your church. We just make it clear that a person must be ignorant of the truth of Catholic faith in order for this to be possible.

The concept of invincible ignorance is no different than the EO teaching that salvation is possible outside the bounds of your church.

I think that Khomiakov says it nicely, without blurring the boundaries of the Church, and without resorting to theories of Invincible Ignorance. Among the Russian Orthodox this is considered an accurate way of describing the salvation of those outside the Church:

'Inasmuch as the earthly and visible Church is not the fullness and completeness of the whole Church which the Lord has appointed to appear at the final judgment of all creation, she acts and knows only within her own limits; and ... does not judge the rest of mankind, and only looks upon those as excluded, that is to say, not belonging to her, who exclude themselves. The rest of mankind, whether alien from the Church, or united to her by ties which God has not willed to reveal to her, she leaves to the judgment of the great day'

The concept of invincible ignorance is no different than the EO teaching that salvation is possible outside the bounds of your church.

I think that Khomiakov says it nicely, without blurring the boundaries of the Church, and without resorting to theories of Invincible Ignorance. Among the Russian Orthodox this is considered an accurate way of describing the salvation of those outside the Church:

'Inasmuch as the earthly and visible Church is not the fullness and completeness of the whole Church which the Lord has appointed to appear at the final judgment of all creation, she acts and knows only within her own limits; and ... does not judge the rest of mankind, and only looks upon those as excluded, that is to say, not belonging to her, who exclude themselves. The rest of mankind, whether alien from the Church, or united to her by ties which God has not willed to reveal to her, she leaves to the judgment of the great day'

~ From "The Church is One"

I do not see how this theory is any better than the invincible ignorance theory. In fact, I think that the invincible ignorance theory is superior in that the individual still has responibility for seeking the truth.

The concept of invincible ignorance is no different than the EO teaching that salvation is possible outside the bounds of your church.

I think that Khomiakov says it nicely, without blurring the boundaries of the Church, and without resorting to theories of Invincible Ignorance. Among the Russian Orthodox this is considered an accurate way of describing the salvation of those outside the Church:

'Inasmuch as the earthly and visible Church is not the fullness and completeness of the whole Church which the Lord has appointed to appear at the final judgment of all creation, she acts and knows only within her own limits; and ... does not judge the rest of mankind, and only looks upon those as excluded, that is to say, not belonging to her, who exclude themselves. The rest of mankind, whether alien from the Church, or united to her by ties which God has not willed to reveal to her, she leaves to the judgment of the great day'

~ From "The Church is One"

I do not see how this theory is any better than the invincible ignorance theory. In fact, I think that the invincible ignorance theory is superior in that the individual still has responibility for seeking the truth.

The Orthoodx of course have sought and found, or simply inherited, their tradition. Our Roman Catholic brethren probably need to go on roaming and seeking.

The one group that definitely claimed Protestants (and Orthodox and non-RCs) were heading off to inferno were the Boston "Feeneyites" - they were branded a heresy by the American hierarchy (with the blessing of Rome) - part of their group went schismatic. Some of this predates Vatican II. They used a lot of papal proof texts as well. There was one guy who the past few years has become famous for penning an essay on why he did not become Orthodox - he went "Catholic-schismatic" and fell in with the Feeneyites. The SSPX crowd consider them heretics as well. The Feeneyites remind me somewhat of the Jansenists - another Augustinian-inspired heresy within the Roman church.

+Hilarion in his lates book quotes Bulgakov (and cites other liturgical and patristic sources) for the belief that all those who died outside the canonical boundaries of the Church had the Gospel preached to them on Holy Saturday - and had the opportunity to convert and thus were saved. For them, Holy Saturday is not a one-time or limited event, but something mystical.

I think that Khomiakov says it nicely, without blurring the boundaries of the Church, and without resorting to theories of Invincible Ignorance. Among the Russian Orthodox this is considered an accurate way of describing the salvation of those outside the Church:

'Inasmuch as the earthly and visible Church is not the fullness and completeness of the whole Church which the Lord has appointed to appear at the final judgment of all creation, she acts and knows only within her own limits; and ... does not judge the rest of mankind, and only looks upon those as excluded, that is to say, not belonging to her, who exclude themselves. The rest of mankind, whether alien from the Church, or united to her by ties which God has not willed to reveal to her, she leaves to the judgment of the great day'

~ From "The Church is One"

And Orthodoxy is how old? I don't know that it is a bragging point to say that it took nearly 2000 years for Orthodoxy to develop some kind of more gentle and scripturally faithful position concerning heretics and the unchurched...

The concept of invincible ignorance is no different than the EO teaching that salvation is possible outside the bounds of your church.

I think that Khomiakov says it nicely, without blurring the boundaries of the Church, and without resorting to theories of Invincible Ignorance. Among the Russian Orthodox this is considered an accurate way of describing the salvation of those outside the Church:

'Inasmuch as the earthly and visible Church is not the fullness and completeness of the whole Church which the Lord has appointed to appear at the final judgment of all creation, she acts and knows only within her own limits; and ... does not judge the rest of mankind, and only looks upon those as excluded, that is to say, not belonging to her, who exclude themselves. The rest of mankind, whether alien from the Church, or united to her by ties which God has not willed to reveal to her, she leaves to the judgment of the great day'

~ From "The Church is One"

I do not see how this theory is any better than the invincible ignorance theory. In fact, I think that the invincible ignorance theory is superior in that the individual still has responibility for seeking the truth.

The Orthoodx of course have sought and found, or simply inherited, their tradition. Our Roman Catholic brethren probably need to go on roaming and seeking.

I think that Khomiakov says it nicely, without blurring the boundaries of the Church, and without resorting to theories of Invincible Ignorance. Among the Russian Orthodox this is considered an accurate way of describing the salvation of those outside the Church:

'Inasmuch as the earthly and visible Church is not the fullness and completeness of the whole Church which the Lord has appointed to appear at the final judgment of all creation, she acts and knows only within her own limits; and ... does not judge the rest of mankind, and only looks upon those as excluded, that is to say, not belonging to her, who exclude themselves. The rest of mankind, whether alien from the Church, or united to her by ties which God has not willed to reveal to her, she leaves to the judgment of the great day'

~ From "The Church is One"

And Orthodoxy is how old? I don't know that it is a bragging point to say that it took nearly 2000 years for Orthodoxy to develop some kind of more gentle and scripturally faithful position concerning heretics and the unchurched...

M.

This was mean-spirited and I do remember how the Catholic Church has approached and reproached and rejected Orthodoxy over the centuries...Sometimes with just cause and other times just because.

I think that Khomiakov says it nicely, without blurring the boundaries of the Church, and without resorting to theories of Invincible Ignorance. Among the Russian Orthodox this is considered an accurate way of describing the salvation of those outside the Church:

'Inasmuch as the earthly and visible Church is not the fullness and completeness of the whole Church which the Lord has appointed to appear at the final judgment of all creation, she acts and knows only within her own limits; and ... does not judge the rest of mankind, and only looks upon those as excluded, that is to say, not belonging to her, who exclude themselves. The rest of mankind, whether alien from the Church, or united to her by ties which God has not willed to reveal to her, she leaves to the judgment of the great day'

~ From "The Church is One"

And Orthodoxy is how old? I don't know that it is a bragging point to say that it took nearly 2000 years for Orthodoxy to develop some kind of more gentle and scripturally faithful position concerning heretics and the unchurched...

Wrong! wrong! Look, you are thoroughly familiar with the canons of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. You know how dealing with heretics and schismatics took up a deal of time of the discussions at these Councils and what emerged in the form of canons for dealing with heretics and schismatics was on the whole rather gentle, to bring them back to the Church.

It was, I think, sometimes more lenient than the divinely inspired instructions of Saint John the Apostle of Love, that we must not receive heretics into our houses when they come with a different teaching.

"If anyone comes to you with a different doctrine, do not receive him into your house and do not greet him, for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds." ~ 2 John

Kind of tough, isn't it but it must have been warranted in the circumstances.

By way of contrast we have the words of Saint Gregory Nazianzen who died 300 years after Saint John:

"We seek not conquest but the return of our brethren, whose separation from us is tearing us apart."

The concept of invincible ignorance is no different than the EO teaching that salvation is possible outside the bounds of your church.

I think that Khomiakov says it nicely, without blurring the boundaries of the Church, and without resorting to theories of Invincible Ignorance. Among the Russian Orthodox this is considered an accurate way of describing the salvation of those outside the Church:

'Inasmuch as the earthly and visible Church is not the fullness and completeness of the whole Church which the Lord has appointed to appear at the final judgment of all creation, she acts and knows only within her own limits; and ... does not judge the rest of mankind, and only looks upon those as excluded, that is to say, not belonging to her, who exclude themselves. The rest of mankind, whether alien from the Church, or united to her by ties which God has not willed to reveal to her, she leaves to the judgment of the great day'

~ From "The Church is One"

I do not see how this theory is any better than the invincible ignorance theory. In fact, I think that the invincible ignorance theory is superior in that the individual still has responibility for seeking the truth.

The Orthoodx of course have sought and found, or simply inherited, their tradition. Our Roman Catholic brethren probably need to go on roaming and seeking.

Oh nonsense.

Not at all! We shan't be able to rest easily until you have come home.

This is not just a problem with the Catholic schema, however. One also finds something similar, e.g., in St Mark of Ephesus. In his first homily on purgatory, Mark distinguishes three remissions of sin: (1) during Baptism, (2) after Baptism, through conversion and good works, and (3) after death, through the prayers and good deeds of the Church. The first remission, Mark tells us, is not bound up with any labor. It is "grace alone and of us is asked nothing else but faith." The second remission is painful, involving contrition, repentance, and weeping. The third remission is also painful, "for it is bound up with repentance and a conscience that is contrite and suffers from insufficiency of good." "Moreover," says St Mark, "in the first and last remission of sins the grace of God has the larger part, with the cooperation of prayers, and very little is brought in by us. The middle remission, on the other hand, has little from grace, while the greater part is owing to our labor." Quite honestly, I find this presentation as unsatisfactory as the classical Roman position. It too seems to suffer from a juridical construal of post-baptismal sin and seems to suggest that God has to be persuaded by our ascetical works to forgive. The unconditionality of God's love and mercy seems to get pushed aside. No wonder some folks in the early centuries inferred that it would be best to postpone Holy Baptism until later in life. Yet surely such an inference is wrong--and not just because death can come to us at any time, without warning.

IMHO, this is an area that requires more reflection by both Catholics and Orthodox.

This has been percolating for several days.

The teaching of the Way of Perfection or the ascetic way of unceasing prayer, fasting and alms giving is in no way undertaken in order to persuade God. It is always undertaken to persuade our own will and intellect or nous to become ever-more willing and able to yield to God's providence.

What I wonder is why is it that there cannot be that one moment in time when God sanctifies and justifies us, to the extent that we are returned to our original justice, even if for only a brief moment.

We don't seem to have any difficulty imagining that original justice being bestowed after long years of ascetic work. In fact it is almost expected. The danger here is that it is too often expected rather than being seen as an undeserved grace, bestowed freely by a generous and compassionate God.

So whether that undeserved grace is bestowed at the time of our Baptism or bestowed on us after a long and faithful asectic life...the grace is no less undeserved.

Not at all! We shan't be able to rest easily until you have come home.

I agree Father:

From Ut Unum Sint

The Catholic Church embraces with hope the commitment to ecumenism as a duty of the Christian conscience enlightened by faith and guided by love. Here too we can apply the words of Saint Paul to the first Christians of Rome: "God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit"; thus our "hope does not disappoint us" (Rom 5:5). This is the hope of Christian unity, which has its divine source in the Trinitarian unity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

The Council states that the Church of Christ "subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him", and at the same time acknowledges that "many elements of sanctification and of truth can be found outside her visible structure. These elements, however, as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, possess an inner dynamism towards Catholic unity".11

"It follows that these separated Churches and Communities, though we believe that they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and value in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church".12

"It follows that these separated Churches and Communities, though we believe that they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and value in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church".

"It follows that these separated Churches and Communities, though we believe that they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and value in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church".

Are these "defects" enumerated?

Not in that particular location. The defects are clarified in the CDF clarification on the phrase Sister Churches.

In brief the only "defect" of Orthodox Churches is the schism itself which is thought, on the part of the Catholic Church to be material and not formal. In other words, the Catholic Church does not see Orthodoxy as heretical.

Yes. In so far as the Catholic Church is wounded by the effects of the schism, yes.

How could it not be so if what the Catholic Church tells her faithful about Orthodoxy is true? I believe both Popes John Paul II and currently Benedict XVI have acknowledged that the Orthodox Church has an unbroken line of Apostolic Succession and is graced in her sacramental being and graced as particular Churches sharing one fully formed faith...wounded by schism.

Yes. In so far as the Catholic Church is wounded by the effects of the schism, yes.

How could it not be so if what the Catholic Church tells her faithful about Orthodoxy is true? I believe both Popes John Paul II and currently Benedict XVI have acknowledged that the Orthodox Church has an unbroken line of Apostolic Succession and is graced in her sacramental being and graced as particular Churches sharing one fully formed faith...wounded by schism.

M.

I really don't think this is an accurate reading of the Pope's words. The reason that the EO Church is in schism, and thus defective, is because it is out of communion with the Holy See. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, is in communion with the Holy See.

Not at all! We shan't be able to rest easily until you have come home.

Dear Father:And from the Orthodox standpoint, what is required from the Roman Catholic Church for this to occur?I recall that you have mentioned the fear that Orthodox have of Roman Catholics. How will this fear be allayed. Would it help if there is elected a Melkite bishop as Pope?

Not at all! We shan't be able to rest easily until you have come home.

Dear Father:And from the Orthodox standpoint, what is required from the Roman Catholic Church for this to occur?

Christ is Risen, Alleluia

To put it simply, the Orthodox Churches will need to fell certain that Rome has returned to the orthodox catholic faith of the first millennium.

None of the Orthodox Churches seek Rome's submission. To whom would it be in submission? Jerusalem? Moscow? Belgrade? Ludicrous! So submission is a not a factor for the Orthodox,. What matters is the profession of a fully orthodox faith. I imagine that the Orthodox Churches will convene a pan-Orthodox Council, even an Ecumenical Council, to discuss Rome's homecoming.

Quote

I recall that you have mentioned the fear that Orthodox have of Roman Catholics. How will this fear be allayed. Would it help if there is elected a Melkite bishop as Pope?

My understanding is that at the time of union it is accepted that the Eastern Catholic Churches will be folded back into their originating Orthodox Churches.

But it does not matter really. Rome will certainly not be permitted in a united Christendom to return to its first millennium status of the first Church among the Churches.. Rome has been separated and in heresy for 1000 years now, It has proven to be ailing and unable to overcome the heresies which have risen in its bosom. It would not be appropriate to assign the position of first Church to Rome. Rome will become a sister Church among the Orthodox Churches. Rome will need a gentle time to recuperate, under the guidance of her sister Churches. A time without too much pressure, a time when it will not be asked to function as the first Church within the universal Church.

Not at all! We shan't be able to rest easily until you have come home.

Dear Father:And from the Orthodox standpoint, what is required from the Roman Catholic Church for this to occur?

Christ is Risen, Alleluia

To put it simply, the Orthodox Churches will need to fell certain that Rome has returned to the orthodox catholic faith of the first millennium.

None of the Orthodox Churches seek Rome's submission. To whom would it be in submission? Jerusalem? Moscow? Belgrade? Ludicrous! So submission is a not a factor for the Orthodox,. What matters is the profession of a fully orthodox faith. I imagine that the Orthodox Churches will convene a pan-Orthodox Council, even an Ecumenical Council, to discuss Rome's homecoming.

Quote

I recall that you have mentioned the fear that Orthodox have of Roman Catholics. How will this fear be allayed. Would it help if there is elected a Melkite bishop as Pope?

My understanding is that at the time of union it is accepted that the Eastern Catholic Churches will be folded back into their originating Orthodox Churches.

But it does not matter really. Rome will certainly not be permitted in a united Christendom to return to its first millennium status of the first Church among the Churches.. Rome has been separated and in heresy for 1000 years now, It has proven to be ailing and unable to overcome the heresies which have risen in its bosom. It would not be appropriate to assign the position of first Church to Rome. Rome will become a sister Church among the Orthodox Churches. Rome will need a gentle time to recuperate, under the guidance of her sister Churches. A time without too much pressure, a time when it will not be asked to function as the first Church within the universal Church.

Apparently there are other Orthodox who don't follow this particular fantasy.